Question Time
#32
But why let the truth get in the way of your beliefs, eh?
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The “peaceniks” you so cavalierly condemn were campaigning against the arming of Saddam and Iraq in the 80’s, in a war that cost a million lives, were campaigning against supplying him with the chemicals used to gas the inhabitants of Halabja, and campaigned in the millions against the illegal invasion of Iraq – causing, well who knows, as they did not bother to account for the innocent lives lost.
The “peaceniks” you support, were supplying “in the name of Realpolitik” the guns and chemicals that prolonged a war that caused a million deaths, the “peaceniks” that you support unleashed on the innocent peoples of Iraq the “dogs of war” in a carnage of biblical proportions.
it reminds me of the American general fighting in Vietnam who said - "To save this village we have to destroy it"
Bizarre – that’s all
The “peaceniks” you support, were supplying “in the name of Realpolitik” the guns and chemicals that prolonged a war that caused a million deaths, the “peaceniks” that you support unleashed on the innocent peoples of Iraq the “dogs of war” in a carnage of biblical proportions.
it reminds me of the American general fighting in Vietnam who said - "To save this village we have to destroy it"
Bizarre – that’s all
#34
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.S. If you would like to supply me with some evidence that the invading US/UK troops did not kill any civilians then I would be very pleased to receive it. I presume you have it due to your comment about what I said being a total lie, not even a partial one. If not a retraction will be fine.
Last edited by f1_fan; 24 January 2011 at 08:25 AM.
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#36
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mugabe presented/presents a quite different scenario. Any action would have had to be taken by African force with discrete help from the West so that he didn't play the race/colonial card. But there is a reasonable opposition there and there is little doubt that the country could regain its status if only.......
An assassin's bullet might do the trick in Zimbabwe but it wouldn't have worked in Iraq?
dl
#37
You can say all you like about SH and his evil ways, as well as his egregious sons, but the fact remains that it was an internationally illegal war and SH was not a good enough excuse to attack Iraq. They should have tried harder to get support from the UN.
I wonder why Billy Boy and Dubya decided that there would be no official record kept of the casualties which ensued from that war.
Les
I wonder why Billy Boy and Dubya decided that there would be no official record kept of the casualties which ensued from that war.
Les
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that over the next few years we are going to be presented with an equally difficult a divisive problem: Iran.
Do we simply allow the Iranian regime nuclear weapons, or do we do all we can' and that mean ultimately military intervention, to prevent it?
I'm sure Galloway would be happy to salute the Iranian regime and support their 'right' to nuclear arms.
For me the potential consequences of Iran have a nuke, far outweigh the consequences of preventing it.
Do we simply allow the Iranian regime nuclear weapons, or do we do all we can' and that mean ultimately military intervention, to prevent it?
I'm sure Galloway would be happy to salute the Iranian regime and support their 'right' to nuclear arms.
For me the potential consequences of Iran have a nuke, far outweigh the consequences of preventing it.
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Mugabe issue is tough: China and Russia have often opposing interests in Zimbabwe, so we'd effectively be siding with one or t'other. We have issues with the African Union with whom diplomacy remains embryonic and there's South Africa to consider. Couple that with the fact we're stretched in the middle east and that there's no advantage to be gained, Mugabe's off the radar.
I was just posing a question really for discussion. I don't know whether leaving Saddam would have been the lesser of two terrible evils? But when the West did take him out we seem to have made a pretty big ***** up of the whole business.
Mugabe presented/presents a quite different scenario. Any action would have had to be taken by African force with discrete help from the West so that he didn't play the race/colonial card. But there is a reasonable opposition there and there is little doubt that the country could regain its status if only.......
An assassin's bullet might do the trick in Zimbabwe but it wouldn't have worked in Iraq?
dl
Mugabe presented/presents a quite different scenario. Any action would have had to be taken by African force with discrete help from the West so that he didn't play the race/colonial card. But there is a reasonable opposition there and there is little doubt that the country could regain its status if only.......
An assassin's bullet might do the trick in Zimbabwe but it wouldn't have worked in Iraq?
dl
Last edited by JTaylor; 24 January 2011 at 07:02 PM.
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that over the next few years we are going to be presented with an equally difficult a divisive problem: Iran.
Do we simply allow the Iranian regime nuclear weapons, or do we do all we can' and that mean ultimately military intervention, to prevent it?
I'm sure Galloway would be happy to salute the Iranian regime and support their 'right' to nuclear arms.
For me the potential consequences of Iran have a nuke, far outweigh the consequences of preventing it.
Do we simply allow the Iranian regime nuclear weapons, or do we do all we can' and that mean ultimately military intervention, to prevent it?
I'm sure Galloway would be happy to salute the Iranian regime and support their 'right' to nuclear arms.
For me the potential consequences of Iran have a nuke, far outweigh the consequences of preventing it.
#42
Two things. One you are talking crap and secondly even if what you say was true surely the invading fiorce that has destroyed the country is in some way to blame for the civil war that now exists there.
P.S. If you would like to supply me with some evidence that the invading US/UK troops did not kill any civilians then I would be very pleased to receive it. I presume you have it due to your comment about what I said being a total lie, not even a partial one. If not a retraction will be fine.
P.S. If you would like to supply me with some evidence that the invading US/UK troops did not kill any civilians then I would be very pleased to receive it. I presume you have it due to your comment about what I said being a total lie, not even a partial one. If not a retraction will be fine.
You made a propoganda statement inferring that British troops were deliberately killing all the darkies they could and hadn't yet succeeded in doing them all. You really should be ashamed of yourself for making such a low-brow assertion. But somehow I expect you're proud you made your big point on behalf of "the brothers", innit.
My point of sectarian violence being the biggest problem still stands. Google "Iraq Mosque Bomb" if you want some examples. The causes are complex for sure and the removal of Saddam from power would certainly be a catalyst - as a totalitarian regime was taken out leaving people free to do what they wanted. Peace and democracy weren't high on the agenda for some it seems
#44
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You made a propoganda statement inferring that British troops were deliberately killing all the darkies they could and hadn't yet succeeded in doing them all. You really should be ashamed of yourself for making such a low-brow assertion. But somehow I expect you're proud you made your big point on behalf of "the brothers", innit.
My point is that if you go invading a country like Iraq you are going to end up causing the deaths of civilains, it's inevitable. If you don't invade it then you won't.
My comment merely juxtaposed the lives of those left alive in Iraq today against those that were killed as a result of our invasion (British and American forces). I don't blame the troops on the ground one iota, they were just doing a job, I do however blame Blair and Bush.
You know what I will have that apology as what you drew form my post was what you wanted to, not what it said and is actually quite twisted.
#45
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a bomb attack on Saddam and all the doubles were called in and waited for the news. Saddam's aide came in with a serious look on his face. "Well there's good news and bad news boys". Fortunately our master lives on. But sadly he lost an arm in the attack
dl
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you
seriously expect an apology from me.
You made a propoganda statement inferring that British troops were deliberately killing all the darkies they could and hadn't yet succeeded in doing them all. You really should be ashamed of yourself for making such a low-brow assertion. But somehow I expect you're proud you made your big point on behalf of "the brothers", innit.
My point of sectarian violence being the biggest problem still stands. Google "Iraq Mosque Bomb" if you want some examples. The causes are complex for sure and the removal of Saddam from power would certainly be a catalyst - as a totalitarian regime was taken out leaving people free to do what they wanted. Peace and democracy weren't high on the agenda for some it seems
seriously expect an apology from me.
You made a propoganda statement inferring that British troops were deliberately killing all the darkies they could and hadn't yet succeeded in doing them all. You really should be ashamed of yourself for making such a low-brow assertion. But somehow I expect you're proud you made your big point on behalf of "the brothers", innit.
My point of sectarian violence being the biggest problem still stands. Google "Iraq Mosque Bomb" if you want some examples. The causes are complex for sure and the removal of Saddam from power would certainly be a catalyst - as a totalitarian regime was taken out leaving people free to do what they wanted. Peace and democracy weren't high on the agenda for some it seems
#49
Scooby Regular
agreed
the Vietnam quote sums up the fact that American foreign policy does not seem to have changed much in the last 30 years,
"To save Iraq is was necessary to destory it" -- seems to be the basic premise of the whole exercise - when you strip away the self righteous claptrap.
the Vietnam quote sums up the fact that American foreign policy does not seem to have changed much in the last 30 years,
"To save Iraq is was necessary to destory it" -- seems to be the basic premise of the whole exercise - when you strip away the self righteous claptrap.
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 25 January 2011 at 07:59 PM.
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this about logic and principle, Hodgy, or do you just dislike The Septics?
#51
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're not rebuilding the "damage"- it's restructuring on a mass scale that's taking place, at least get the basic principles right.
#52
Scooby Regular
I find it ironic that you give them such an easy time considering 50% of them discount the theory of evolution, believe humans kept T-Rex's as pets and the Earth is less than 5000 years old -pretty fundamental beliefs
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 26 January 2011 at 08:47 AM.
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#54
I suspect that over the next few years we are going to be presented with an equally difficult a divisive problem: Iran.
Do we simply allow the Iranian regime nuclear weapons, or do we do all we can' and that mean ultimately military intervention, to prevent it?
I'm sure Galloway would be happy to salute the Iranian regime and support their 'right' to nuclear arms.
For me the potential consequences of Iran have a nuke, far outweigh the consequences of preventing it.
Do we simply allow the Iranian regime nuclear weapons, or do we do all we can' and that mean ultimately military intervention, to prevent it?
I'm sure Galloway would be happy to salute the Iranian regime and support their 'right' to nuclear arms.
For me the potential consequences of Iran have a nuke, far outweigh the consequences of preventing it.
Les
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you're prepared to watch Ahmadinejad acquire nuclear weapons.
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't expect or want an apology, just a retraction.
Where on earth did you get that from in my post??? British troops deliberately killing civilians FFS??? Where did I even infer that?
My point is that if you go invading a country like Iraq you are going to end up causing the deaths of civilains, it's inevitable. If you don't invade it then you won't.
My comment merely juxtaposed the lives of those left alive in Iraq today against those that were killed as a result of our invasion (British and American forces). I don't blame the troops on the ground one iota, they were just doing a job, I do however blame Blair and Bush.
You know what I will have that apology as what you drew form my post was what you wanted to, not what it said and is actually quite twisted.
Where on earth did you get that from in my post??? British troops deliberately killing civilians FFS??? Where did I even infer that?
My point is that if you go invading a country like Iraq you are going to end up causing the deaths of civilains, it's inevitable. If you don't invade it then you won't.
My comment merely juxtaposed the lives of those left alive in Iraq today against those that were killed as a result of our invasion (British and American forces). I don't blame the troops on the ground one iota, they were just doing a job, I do however blame Blair and Bush.
You know what I will have that apology as what you drew form my post was what you wanted to, not what it said and is actually quite twisted.
You harp on about this sh1te all the time, are you going to blow up a plane soon to avenge your muslim brothers!
We went to war for maybe the wrong reasons on the face of it all but saddam needed removing, end of.
You act like its a crusade against all muslims, just like the nutters who end up blowionig themselves up!
Serious question, where does it all come from, what ties do you have to islam?
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts